Charging Stations names vs. Petrol Station names

[DerKaiserschmarren]

I propose the idea to tag all amenity=charging_stations that got no name with the name tag, that is identical to the operator tag, similarly to how it is done with fuel stations.

Example: Way: 1459256863 | OpenStreetMap would get „name=Wien Energie“, as this is the operator. If the charging park already has a name it would be unaffected.

If the same operator would have a petrol station, this is how it would be done there, too, so I guess it makes sense to have the name also be used for what the operator is for Charging Stations.

I‘d love to hear what you as community think about this idea If you have questions to this idea please ask!

[RobJN (Rob Nickerson)]

Others have asked for a change to the “default” rendering to show operator. See Not showing name and showing brand of amenity=charging_station · Issue #4450 · openstreetmap-carto/openstreetmap-carto · GitHub

[Mateusz_Konieczny]

@DerKaiserschmarren

I propose the idea to tag all amenity=charging_stations that got no name with the name tag, that is identical to the operator tag, similarly to how it is done with fuel stations.

I think that both should default to brand if no name is set. Or display nothing and name should replicate brand. It is especially visible with franchises.

For example if Dzińdziboł Dzińdzibolski GMBH sp.z.o.o. operates petrol station branded everywhere “Orlen”, and it has no dedicated common name, then I would expect prominently visible brand name to be put into name. Not official legal name of what technically operates it.

And if renderer wants to fall back (due to missing name field) then I expect brand be chosen over name

[SomeoneElse (Andy Townsend)]

It makes sense for renderers to use brand and/or operator in place of a missing name for quite a few types of OSM objects, and this is one of those.

Sometimes mappers “tag for the renderer” and duplicate the operator as name. One of the ones in this car park has it, one does not. I’d expect them to be shown the same.

Edit: clarity of words

[silversurfer83]

I’m with others here.

Don’t replicate bad tagging. That’s all.

[Minh_Nguyen (Minh Nguyễn)]

For what it’s worth, I think both named and unnamed charging stations may be possible, depending on the situation and maybe the region. The point is to help data consumers align with how people actually refer to the kind of feature in the real world. For gas stations in my part of the world, the name=* is definitely expected to match the brand name, or at least include it. That said, expectations for charging stations could be more fluid than for gas stations.

@Minh_Nguyen

My perspective on this is limited, since I’m not an electric vehicle owner and don’t have experience with this kind of infrastructure. What I’ve noticed is that EV charging stations fall into an uncanny valley among points of interest: sort of street furniture, sort of a destination in its own right, depending on how you look at it. That affects expectations about whether it should have a name=* based on brand=*.

Fixtures like fire hydrants, public telephones, information kiosks, and ATMs are generally unnamed with rare exceptions. Data consumers have struggled with whether to label ATMs based on other keys besides name=*. I could see an argument for omitting name=* from an unremarkable charging station in a parking lot, particularly a private one for customers or employees. But many of the ones we’re mapping are intended to be destinations. In rural areas, they’re even signposted at freeway exits just like gas stations and other motorist amenities.

The U.S. has a very strong convention to always include name=* on a gas station. Most chain gas stations will have a name=* that matches the brand=* of either the station itself or the attached store. Any deviation from this practice would need to be well-justified, for example if the gas station is a landmark and its signs promote a unique location name unusually prominently. The point of this naming convention is for each name=* tag to be consistent with end user expectations. To the extent that the names follow a predictable formula, it’s only because of real world expectations and usage, not for the purpose of database consistency.

[pussreboots]

My very limited experience with charging station naming conventions as a recent EV owner is it’s location=* brand=*. For example: The Nut Tree Charge Point. Although for their faster chargers, Charge Point gives each charger a name like “Muriel” or “George” and a number to their slower ones. I don’t know if that level of detail is necessary when mapping.

[Minh_Nguyen (Minh Nguyễn)]

@pussreboots

My very limited experience with charging station naming conventions as a recent EV owner is it’s location=* brand=*. For example: The Nut Tree Charge Point.

My understanding is that ChargePoint franchises their units to business owners to run themselves. Some ATM networks like AFCN operate under a similar model. Many franchises allow for location-specific branding. My go-to example for shops is IGA, which stands in contrast to most supermarket chains.

@pussreboots

Although for their faster chargers, Charge Point gives each charger a name like “Muriel” or “George” and a number to their slower ones. I don’t know if that level of detail is necessary when mapping.

I think it’s fair to map somehow. I noticed that Amazon Hub parcel lockers have cute memorable names too. I mapped “nest” based on a “my name is” sticker on the front of the unit.